Personality Theory & Research:

An International Perspective
Gordon L. Flett

Prepared by
Brenda Baird, University of Ottawa

1
 Chapter 10 Overview

• Harry Stack Sullivan

• The Interpersonal Dimensions
• The Interpersonal Circumplex
• The Machiavellian personality
• The Authoritarian Personality
• Attachment Styles
• Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships

2
 Harry Stack Sullivan
• Sullivan emphasized interpersonal
relationships and social experiences in
shaping personality
• Sullivan’s theorem of escape describes a
self-system that is resistant to experiences
that evoke anxiety
• Sullivan's theorem of reciprocal emotions
refers to the interactive influence of
emotions between the self and others, and
reflects the interpersonal aspects of anxiety
3
 Harry Stack Sullivan
The Developmental Epochs
• Sullivan (1953) outlined six
developmental stages called “epochs”:
1. Infancy
2. Childhood
3. Juvenile era
4. Preadolescence
5. Early adolescence
6. Late adolescence
4
 Harry Stack Sullivan
The Developmental Epochs
• Motivating forces in development of the self-
system range from the need for security in
infancy, to a need for satisfaction, intimacy,
and agentic power throughout development
• The need for tenderness, security and
intimacy reflect the need for human contact
• Sullivan stressed the importance of appraisal
from others in shaping one’s self-image

5
 Harry Stack Sullivan
The Good Me, the Bad Me, and the Not Me
• Sullivan made a distinction among three
selves:
– The ‘good me’ versus the ‘bad me’ based on
social appraisal and the anxiety that results
from negative feedback
– The ‘not me’ refers to the unknown,
repressed component of the self

6
 Harry Stack Sullivan
Personifications
• Sullivan used the term personification to
describe cognitive categories (mental
prototypes) that shape one's perceptions of
the self and others
• Current research investigates relational
schemas that influence perception and
cognition
• Sullivan suggested that mental disorders
are the result of situations that are
incompatible with our personifications
7
 Harry Stack Sullivan
Evaluation of Sullivan’s Theory
• Sullivan incited interest in interpersonal
theory, particularly on aspects of agency
and communion
• Critics note the abstract nature of his
concepts and the resultant lack of empirical
testing
• The role of interpersonal factors in his
theory may be overextended

8
 The Interpersonal Dimensions
• Leary suggested that all interpersonal
behaviour reflects two fundamental and
orthogonal axes:
1. Affiliation vs. hostility
2. Power vs. submission
• Carson (1969) expanded Leary's views
and formulated the complimentarity
principle, which states that one’s
interpersonal behaviour evokes a
corresponding, or supplemental behaviour
in another 9
 The Interpersonal Dimensions
Agency versus Communion
• Bakan (1966) formulated two
metacognitions that provide the basic
dimensions of the social world:
– Agency refers to a need to have an impact
– Communion refers to a connection with
others
• Those high in agency are independent
and autonomous
• Those high in communion are warm and
nurturing 10
 The Interpersonal Circumplex
• Wiggins’ (1991) circumplex model depicts
major dimensions of interpersonal relations
in a two-dimensional plot, or circle
• The interpersonal circumplex is represented
by two axes that represent dimensions of
love-warmth along the horizontal, and
dimensions of dominance-power along the
vertical
• Respondents receive a score for each of
the eight octants, depicted by letters, which
represent blends of two coordinates 11
 The Interpersonal Circumplex
• Measures of the interpersonal circumplex
include the Interpersonal Adjective Scales
(IAS) and the Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems (IIP)
• Psychometric evidence indicates that the
scales do capture the dimensions of warmth
and dominance according to a circumplex
model
• Interpersonal style is assessed by the vector
length, with scores farther from the center
representing the core aspects of personality
12
The Interpersonal Circumplex

13
 The Interpersonal Circumplex
• Research indicates a link between
circumplex measures and other self-report
measures
• Critics note that social desirability may
confound measures obtained from the
circumplex model
• The circumplex model can be used
nomothetically to examine general
personality constructs in samples, and
ideographically to examine individuals in
clinical settings 14
 The Machiavellian Personality
• Machiavellianism is a term used to
describe those who deceive and
manipulate others for personal gain
• Sherry, Hewitt, Besser, Flett, and Klein
(2006) concluded that Machiavellian
cynicism is a retaliation against a perceived
hostile society
• Machiavellianism is measured using
Christie’s MACH-IV scale that consists of
20 self-report items
15
 The Machiavellian Personality
• Paulhus and Williams (2002) describe
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy as
interrelated constructs that make up the dark triad
• Machiavellianism appears to be a stable
personality trait based on research with children,
and adequate test-retest reliability estimates
• Christie’s (1970) factor analysis using the KIDDIE-
MACH has revealed dishonesty, distrust, and lack
of faith in human nature; bullying and social skills
seem to be related factors

16
 The Authoritarian Personality
• Authoritarianism is a term used to describe
those who are domineering with little
interpersonal warmth
• Adorno et al.’s (1950) developmental
approach suggested authoritarianism was
the result of overcontrolling parents that led
to harsh evaluations of others
• Adorno et. al developed the California F-
Scale as a measure of authoritarianism, but
the construct is difficult to test empirically

17
The Authoritarian Personality

18
The Authoritarian Personality

19
 The Authoritarian Personality
Authoritarianism: Right-Wing vs. Left-Wing
• Authoritarianism has been described as
right-wing conservative thinking
• Altmeyer (1996) identified left-wing
authoritarianism but sample selection limits
a nomothetic approach

20
 The Authoritarian Personality
Authoritarianism and Political Psychology
• Research investigating authoritarianism has
been revived due to current world events,
especially the fall of Communism
• McFarland, Ageyev, and Abalakina-Paap
(1992) concluded that authoritarianism still
remained strongly related to conventional
thinking despite the decline in a communist
ideology

21
 The Authoritarian Personality
Altmeyer’s Components of Right-Wing
Authoritarianism
• Altmeyer developed a psychometric
measure of right-wing authoritarianism
that was not biased by response sets
• Altmeyer lists three features of right-wing
authoritarianism:
– Authoritarian aggression
– Authoritarian submission
– Conventionalism
22
 The Authoritarian Personality
Social Dominance Orientation
• Social dominance orientation refers to
individual differences in a person’s need for
an in-group to retain superiority over an out-
group
• Lippa and Arad (1999) reported higher
levels of social dominance in those rated as
less nurturant and more prejudiced

23
 The Authoritarian Personality

• Social dominance orientation and right-wing

authoritarianism are related, yet reflect two
different constructs:
– Social dominance orientation is evidenced
when an out-group shows competitiveness
with one’s in-group
– Right-wing authoritarianism is evidenced
when deviant groups pose a threat to
mainstream social order
• Those high on both are referred to as
“double highs” 24
 Attachment Styles
• Mary Ainsworth developed the Strange
Situation paradigm to examine the
attachment styles of infants
• Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978)
observed three distinct attachment styles:
– Securely attached
– Anxiously attached
– Avoidant attachment
• Main and Hesse (1990) identified a fourth
type which they called disorganized
attachment style
25
 Attachment Styles
Categories or Dimensions?
• Researchers have traditionally taken a
categorical approach to investigate
attachment styles
• However, Fraley and Spieker (2003)
concluded that a dimensional view is more
appropriate for attachment

26
 Attachment Styles
How Stable Are Attachment Styles over Time?
• Bowlby (1980) asserted that attachment
styles are consistent across the lifespan, but
also stated that life events can evoke
change
• Fraley (2002) reported that attachment style
was a stable trait represented by a baseline,
but could show fluxuations of state due to
life events
• However, over time and situation, a person
does show a predictable attachment style 27
 Attachment Styles
Are Various Attachment Style Measures
Equivalent?
• Attachment styles are assessed using
questionnaires or through an interview such
as the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI:
George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985)
• Psychometric evidence confirms that the
AAI is a reliable and valid measure of
attachment style, but a problem is its low
correlation with self-report measures
28
 Attachment Styles
Romantic Attachment Styles
• Hazan and Shaver (1987) identified three
attachment styles in romantic
relationships:
– Security
– Anxious-ambivalent
– Avoidant
• Bartholomew developed an attachment
style model based on her contention that
other models obscured individual
differences in avoidant styles 29
Attachment Styles

30
 Attachment Styles
Romantic Attachment Styles
• Research has supported the four
attachment styles outlined by
Bartholomew
• Research has also established that a
negative view of the self relative to others
places one at risk for psychopathology
• A dismissive style is associated with
vulnerability

31
 Attachment Styles
Evaluation of Bartholomew’s Attachment Style
Model
• Critics note that the positive model of others,
as identified in the preoccupied self, is often
lacking and has more impact than the model
of others
• Preoccupied attachment styles can show
anger and jealousy that can escalate to rage
• Other measures have been developed such
as The Experiences in Close Relationships
Cases (Brennan, Clark, and Shaver, 1998)
32
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
Research Methods and Issues
• Cooper and Sheldon (2002) reported that more
than 50% of research studies used non-student
samples, in contrast to the norm that 75% are
student samples
• Another issue concerns the finding that in on
third of studies, only one partner’s responses
were analyzed. However, researchers
obtaining responses from both partners must
recognize the nonindependence issue
• Much of the research is atheoretical and lacks
structural model of personality 33
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
Similarity versus Dissimilarity and
Relationship Adjustment
• Assortive mating refers to the finding that
we select mates that are similar to
ourselves
• Voight (2004) found that partner similarity
and relationship satisfaction were unrelated
using a nomothetic approach
• The idiographic, couple-centred approach
examines the individual personality profiles
of each member trait by trait 34
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
Personality Traits and Relationship
Satisfaction
• Peretti and Abplanalp (2004) identified
several important factors in mate
selection:
– Physical attractiveness
– Similarity (Males)
– Reciprocity (Females)
– Warmth (89% women, 59% men)
• Fincham (2001) has argued that
attributional style is central to relationship
satisfaction 35
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
The Role of Neuroticism
• Neuroticism is a consistent predictor of
relationship satisfaction, and it is important
to consider levels in both partners
• Gottman (1982) has emphasized persons
showing criticism, contempt,
defensiveness, and stonewalling as
destructive to relationships
• Neurotics having other-oriented and
socially prescribed perfectionism are at risk
in relationships due to irrational beliefs as
described by Ellis (2002) 36
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
The Role of Perfectionism
• Empirical research supports Ellis’ claim by
establishing that perfectionism is a correlate
of relationship satisfaction:
– Hewitt, Flett, and Mikail (1995) found that
deficits in dyadic adjustment were related
to perfectionism in their sample of pain
patients
– Haring, Hewitt, and Flett (2003) found a
relation between socially prescribed
perfectionism and marital adjustment
37
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
Personality Traits and Relationship Violence
• Trait hostility and impulsivity are significant
predictors of relationship violence
• O’Leary, Malone, and Tyree (1994) found
that defensiveness, impulsivity and
aggression predicted psychological
aggression in both sexes
• Schafer, Caetano, and Cunradi (2004)
found that impulsivity, problem drinking, and
victims of childhood abuse were linked with
partner violence 38
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
Attachment Styles and Relationship Violence
• Roberts and Noller (1998) list three
indicators that link attachment styles to
relationship violence:
– Victims see violence as a sign of love
– Violence is more likely as the romantic
“bond” strengthens
– The expressed violence is couple-specific
• Attachment styles also play a role in
hostility and displays of anger
39
 Personality in Dating and Marital
Relationships
Attachment Styles and Relationship Violence
• Bookwala and Zdaniuk (1998) found
higher levels of preoccupied and fearful-
avoidant attachment styles for those
involved in reciprocally aggressive
relationships
• Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, and Kashy
(2005) found that anxiously attached
persons were more sensitive to conflict
compared to securely attached persons
40
 Copyright
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reproduction or translation of this work beyond that permitted by Access
Copyright (the Canadian copyright licensing agency) is unlawful.
Requests for further information should be addressed to the Permissions
Department, John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. The purchaser may make
back-up copies for his or her own use only and not for distribution or
resale. The author and the publisher assume no responsibility for errors,
omissions, or damages caused by the use of these files or programs or
from the use of the information contained herein.

41